On Thu Jun 19, 2025 at 3:26 PM CEST, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Thu Jun 19, 2025 at 4:24 AM JST, Benno Lossin wrote:
>> On Mon Jun 16, 2025 at 8:41 AM CEST, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>>> On Sun Jun 15, 2025 at 4:16 AM JST, Benno Lossin wrote:
>>>> On Thu Jun 12, 2025 at 4:01 PM CEST, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
>>>>> + #[inline(always)]
>>>>> + pub const fn [<fls_ $t>](v: $t) -> u32 {
>>>>
>>>> Can we name this `find_last_set_bit_ $t`? When the upstream function
>>>> lands, we should also rename this one.
>>>
>>> We can - but as for `align_up`/`next_multiple_of`, I am not sure which
>>> naming scheme (kernel-like or closer to Rust conventions) is favored in
>>> such cases, and so far it seems to come down to personal preference. I
>>> tend to think that staying close to kernel conventions make it easier to
>>> understand when a function is the equivalent of a C one, but whichever
>>> policy we adopt it would be nice to codify it somewhere (apologies if it
>>> is already and I missed it).
>>
>> I don't think we have it written down anywhere. I don't think that we
>> should have a global rule for this. Certain things are more in the
>> purview of the kernel and others are more on the Rust side.
>>
>> My opinion is that this, since it will hopefully be in `core` at some
>> point, should go with the Rust naming.
>
> I guess in that case we should go with `last_set_bit`, as `find_` is not
> really used as a prefix for this kind of operations (e.g.
> `leading_zeros` and friends).
Sounds good!
---
Cheers,
Benno
